-First, let me agree with Jason and say that, generally speaking, your review would really benefit from a bit more editing. You clearly know a lot about the game (that's the hard part), so its just a question of finding the most precise and succinct way of communicating those insights with the reader.

-The way you phrase your opening passage is somewhat awkward and confusing. You begin with the bold declaration that the original game was broken--a complete surprise to a casual player of the game like myself. Sure the game had annoying elements, but broken? In what sense? Remember that not every reader is a hardcore Rockband player.

At the end of the parragraph, you then say that Harmonix would do 'what it always does' and fix the original bugs in the sequel. Here's a suggestion: Why not start that passage with a brief overview of Harmonix's recent games--one that illustrates the pattern of flawed first attempts that you attribute to them--then connect that history to the flaws in Rockband, and to the (expected) improvements of Rockband 2. I think that set-up would allow readers to follow your line of argument a little better.